This deck by Rachel Pollack was published by The Aquarian Press in 1992. Although it is
currently out of print, it may still be possible to obtain it with a little effort. A good
friend found one for me on a store shelf in Pennsylvania.

Pollacks two-part book, "78 Degrees of Wisdom," was a very influential
book which explored the Waite-Smith deck from a psychological and cultural viewpoint. It
was one of the first Tarot books I read, and it made a big impact on me. I have always
considered her my favorite Tarot author. For this reason, when I discovered she had
created her own deck I was consumed with curiosity as to what she had come up with. I also
found it interesting that, after doing her part to establish the primacy of the
Waite-Smith deck, she was now challenging that primacy with her own deck.

For these reasons I was delighted when my friend found the deck for me. Upon
examination, there were things I liked more than I thought I would and things that were a
tremendous disappointment. One thing I liked immediately was the suit names -- Trees
instead of Wands, Rivers instead of Cups, Birds instead of Swords and Stones instead of
Pentacles.

I also liked that Pollack has created an innovation with the Court cards. They are
Place, Knower, Gift and Speaker. To quote the book that comes with the deck: "The
Place...takes the qualities of [the] suit and shows them as a physical place
so that we can approach the element as an experience...The Knower then gives us a feeling
for what it would mean to understand and know those qualities in our own lives. The Gift
cards depict [the] moment in the story [when] the hero who has had the courage to leave
our world and enter the magic world of the spirits receives a gift...On receiving his
gift, the hero returns with it and uses his powers to achieve a quest, or simply to help
others...The Speakers give us images of acting from a place of power within
ourselves."

This system seems to me to have the potential to give a lot more to a reading than the
standard Court cards.

I also like the art, which surprised me, as I knew beforehand that the author was not
an accomplished artist. The pictures are crudely done, echoing styles of primitive art
from different times and places, and colored with bright, flat colors. Although I am not
knowledgeable about art, it seems to me that many of the cards show a certain visual
sophistication despite the crude style. Im also a sucker for any deck that uses
bright, cheerful colors.

I also like the art, done by the artist herself, because the primitive drawings
combined with the bright colors make for a certain playfulness and lightness of tone, a
quality noticed by Mary Ann Long in her review of the deck published in the newsletter of
the International Tarot Society. Im not entirely sure if this lightness is
intentional, because Pollacks writing tends to be rather serious; but intentional or
not, it strikes a chord with me. I have found myself lately becoming a little impatient
with decks and authors who take themselves so seriously that one would think that all of
life is composed of nothing but complex, arcane correspondences and glum, mystical moods
(the Haindl deck comes to mind). James Thurber was able to get a lot across with his
lighthearted, rudimentary New Yorker cartoons. In fact, the woman in the 9 of Trees could
have been drawn by Thurber.

There are only a few cards where the quality of the drawing is so poor that it
distracts from the scene. In the Place of Trees, the womens faces are so crudely
drawn that they appear monstrous. And on the Lovers, who are
shown kissing, their mouths are obscured by an ugly blotch of ink which the author
describes as "a darkness between the faces...Sexuality is dark, and moist, and
mysterious." This is probably an instance where the authors intention
outstripped her ability to create the desired effect.

This is a very personal deck. Pollack has collected images and scenes that are
meaningful for her and made a deck of them. I generally like this approach, as it gives
each card a poetic richness.

Many of the cards are still recognizable for their similarity to their Waite-Smith
counterparts, but some are wildly different. The Magician, for example, is modeled after
the Waite-Smith Magician in his stance, although in this card he wears a ceremonial mask,
and behind him is a river and what is described in the book as "the scattered lights
of a dying city," one of many lovely novelistic touches which are scattered
throughout the deck.

The Empress creates quite a different impression from the standard image. A female
figure like a prehistoric statue stands on a river, between two trees and two mountains,
while stars and two planets hang in the sky. From the description in the book she is
apparently standing with her back to us, although one cant tell that from the
drawing.

The Emperor shows a figure wearing a stags head and a full-length robe. The
picture is meant to show masculinity, with many phallic symbols, but I find the picture
disturbing and scary in its lack of humanity. What particularly disturbs me is the
implication (or perhaps only my inference based on a visceral reaction to the picture)
that male sexuality itself is disturbing and scary, which brings up the subject matter of
gender, which I will return to at the end of this review.

In the Hierophant, here renamed Tradition (an innovation
which I wish all decks would follow), the traditional picture is abandoned altogether.
Instead we have five standing stones at a rivers edge, encircling a flower. Five
paths originate from the flower and travel outwards through the standing stones. The
stones represent enlightened beings who take energy from the material world (the paths)
and transform it into spiritual energy, and in the opposite direction channel the
spiritual energy into the material world. Its a fascinating picture and makes a very
nice Tarot card, but I cannot help but think of the question raised by Susan Giles in her
book, "The Tarot: History, Mystery, and Lore," of how far a Tarot card can stray
from the original image and still be considered a Tarot card. By Giless strict
definitions, this card would definitely not pass the test. I dont know the answer; I
suppose everybody must decide this for themselves. Some may feel that its a valuable
image and the question of whether it is "true Tarot" is merely academic
speculation.

I particularly like this decks Hermit. On a hilltop, a tree stands with the sun
in its branches. To the right of the tree is a purple, bird-headed stick figure with a
staff. To the left is a blue doorway hanging in the air, beyond which is a lantern sitting
on a pile of rocks. Inside the hill a turtle travels from a sun on the right to a moon on
the left. This card shows the deck at its very best; just a few symbols combined in such a
way as to give not only an immediate emotional reaction but fuel for endless imaginative
meditation.

The Minors are more of a mixed bag. Some are drawn from mythological stories, some from
natural objects picked up by the author. Some show scenes involving people, and some are
simply geometric arrangements of symbols. Some are highly evocative at first glance, like
the 8 of Trees, in which a woman soars on a log high above a landscape containing seven
trees, two of which are aflame, and a burning house.

Others, however, are arcane scenes or collections of symbols to which one can have no
reaction without reading the description in the book. The author writes, "Shining
Woman is a sacred Tarot, rather than an esoteric one. By esoteric I mean a code of precise
symbols outlining a detailed system of ideas about existence. Shining Woman is more fluid.
While it does contain recurring symbols, it does not work according to an intellectual
plan." This is belied by some of the Minor pictures, which are personal constructions
by Pollack which most certainly do outline a detailed system of ideas, that is, hers,
about existence. These pictures may speak volumes to her, but to the rest of us her symbol
systems are just as much an intellectual plan in need of explication as A.E. Waites.

Finally I must discuss my ultimate disappointment with this deck and why I cannot use
it. The first thing I did when I got the deck was sit down and read the book. As I went
through each card description I had a growing sense of unease, and by the time I got to
the end I knew this was not the deck for me, for the simple reason that this decks
intended audience is women and I am a man.

Pollack is too intelligent a writer to ignore or banish men altogether, and in her book
she seems to be making an effort to be inclusive. The effort shows, however, in
descriptions like the 3 of Rivers, where, after each symbol is described as an aspect of
"the mysteries of the female body" -- including menstrual bleeding, a
downward-pointing triangle representing the female body, a vulva opening, a triple spiral
for the Triple Goddess of the Moons three phases, a pomegranate symbolizing rebirth,
and a labyrinth, "image of the path inward to the Goddess" -- the divinatory
meaning is stated as "Harmony, friendship, especially (although not only) among
women."

This definitely makes me feel like a second-class citizen, especially in light of the
fact that women and the Goddess are stressed throughout the book and deck, while masculine
attributes are treated condescendingly (when treated at all), as in the Emperor, who
"teaches us that we do not overcome male violence and dominance by suppressing male
energy or keeping men as children. Instead, men can transform their vital energy into
creativity and service and love." This description plus the frightening picture on
the card suggest that male energy in general is something negative that needs to be dealt
with and transformed. I think I would have actually preferred it if the author had simply
left men out of the deck altogether.

The deck itself makes less of an effort to be inclusive than the book. There are only
two cards in the deck in which the figures are recognizably male: the 3 of Trees and the Knower of Birds. The 3 of Trees is actually a scarecrow, so one
could say there is only one recognizably male human.

I dont want to be misunderstood; I am in agreement with feminism as a political
matter. I also see the value of using Tarot decks as vehicles to help women empower
themselves in our overly patriarchal society. I have nothing against decks like
Motherpeace or Daughters of the Moon, which are specifically directed towards women. And
Rachel Pollack of course has a right to design any Tarot deck she wants. My problem with
this particular deck, and obviously the fault is mine for having unrealistic expectations,
is that after being so affected by "78 Degrees," which was inclusive of
everybody, I feel as if my favorite author has thrown a party to which I am definitely not
invited.

In this deck the female body seems to be used as a general symbol for all existence As
a man, I do not have the self-interest that a woman has in her own body, and as a gay man,
I do not have a sexual interest in womens bodies. Therefore a womans body does
not resonate with me as a symbol. Its just a little disheartening to receive the
impression, true or not, that the author has made a deck specifically for Goddess-oriented
women and doesnt really care about the rest of us (although I suppose there is no
reason why she should). As a contrast, I have lately been looking favorably at the Robin
Wood deck, which is worlds away from Pollack in terms of sophistication and knowledge and
understanding of symbolism, but at least it has an equal balance of men and women and
depicts healthy expressions of male as well as female sexuality.

My feelings are obviously conflicted, as there is much I like about this deck. But
after reading the book I found myself setting it reluctantly but firmly aside.